August 11, 2012

Fundamental changes proposed

From the AP:
The Census Bureau wants to make broad changes to its surveys to keep pace with changing notions of race. The changes would drop use of the term “Negro,” leaving a choice of “black” or “African-American.” It would count Hispanics as separate from blacks and whites. It would also add write-in categories that would allow Middle Easterners and Arabs to specifically identify themselves. The census director, Robert M. Groves, says research during the 2010 census found that making these changes increased response rates and improved accuracy. The government currently defines Latino as an ethnicity. Census forms now instruct people to indicate if they have Hispanic origin and then check a race box such as “white” or “black.”

This little bureaucratic stuff can turn out to be hugely important down the road, but nobody on the Republican side cares to think about it.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Census forms now instruct people to indicate if they have Hispanic origin and then check a race box such as “white” or “black.”"

This doesn't make sense at all considering that the majority of hispanics are some shade of brown. Brazil has a classification for its mixed race population: pardo or brown and that's what most brazilians identify themselves as.

elvisd said...

Hey, Steve. Since it's the beginning of the school year, just thought I'd report on the latest changes to counting students where I am:

1. In our professional development, our principal was outlining goals, and when she got to "closing the gap", she let us know that the new ways that students would be counted was, "white" and "everyone else". I saw just a bit of a smile that betrayed, "Thanks for lumping in the Asian kids, whoever you are".

2. There's a new form for reporting disciplinary data that breaks down to: white, black, asian, native american, and "Spanish surnamed", which illustrates my contention that this country is hell bent on inventing a grab bag ethnic group.

Anonymous said...

There's money in them there categories.

Count me, and my people, in and hand over lolly.

Conatus said...

Isn't this the most salient argument against those who say something like, "Genetically speaking, Race does not exist." I mean you might be able to make all kinds of rhetorical or even genetic arguments that race does not exist but if the Government that controls your life and increasingly more aspects of your life, insists on you putting you in a racial category then Race Exists for all practical purposes. If Race Exists by law or regulation all the No-Race talk is massaging propaganda. In the United States Race Exists because Big Brother tells us so.

Conatus said...

This title thirteen CFR section from the US regs also shows the US Government fervently believes in RACE.


Title 13: Business Credit and Assistance

CHAPTER I: SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

PART 124: 8(a) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT/SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS STATUS DETERMINATIONS

Subpart A: 8(a) Business Development

: Eligibility Requirements for Participation in the 8(a) Business Development Program

124.103 - Who is socially disadvantaged

(a) General. Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of groups and without regard to their individual qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control.

(b) Members of designated groups. (1) There is a rebuttable presumption that the following individuals are socially disadvantaged: Black Americans; Hispanic Americans; Native Americans (American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, or Native Hawaiians); Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, China (including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam, Korea, The Philippines, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau), Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Samoa, Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru); Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal); and members of other groups designated from time to time by SBA according to procedures set forth at paragraph (d) of this section. Being born in a country does not, by itself, suffice to make the birth country an individual's country of origin for purposes of being included within a designated group.

(2) An individual must demonstrate that he or she has held himself or herself out, and is currently identified by others, as a member of a designated group if SBA requires it.

Weiland said...

Clearly, we have to get away from having an ethnicity on the census. Otherwise, people may begin to question why there couldn't be categorical recognition of other ethnicities, such as the Scots-Irish. After all, if we follow the 'logic' of affirmative action and disparate impact that is used to depress other whites in general and Asians, the Scots-Irish should receive the highest barriers to college and jobs as they are categorically the greatest achievers. 'You didn't build that' is the concept, we are to internalize, right? So it must have been due to unfair discrimination in their favor.

Anonymous said...

This little bureaucratic stuff can turn out to be hugely important down the road, but nobody on the Republican side cares to think about it.

The GOP is the home of [what remains of] antinomianism.

The DEMs host the legalists - the Pharisees and the Papists.

The "little bureaucratic stuff" is legalism - the very concept of it [much less its application in tyrannizing an entire continent] is utterly foreign to an antinomian.

You could say that the GOP needs to start thinking like the enemy - the legalists - but once you allow the legalisms [or even just the possibility of the legalisms] to exist in the first place, then you've already lost the war before the first battle is even fought.

Long term, antinomianism simply cannot coexist with legalism.

Ain't no way, no how.

Anonymous said...

Would you care to elaborate Steve?
I'm not with you.

Anonymous said...

It's such a shame that the US keeps being obsessed about race & skin color

Anonymous said...

That's better than nothing. Ideally we'd scrap the whole idiotic "Hispanic" category and add one for mestizos or people of aboriginal American descent. But that would just confuse many people.

Anonymous said...

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/105747/where-have-all-our-racist-aristocrats-gone-requiem-gore-vidal

Peter said...

These changes do make sense because they comport with the way people really think. No one uses "Negro" anymore while Hispanic has become at least a _de facto_ racial classification.

pat said...

I used to be a negro. I'm sorry to learn that that term is no long fashionable. I am consoled by the fact that I am and will always be an African-American. But I am not now nor have I ever been black.

I'm so white when I go to the beach I fear being harpooned by someone confusing me with Moby Dick.

How can all this be?

In Washington DC there were two vocal studios for would-be opera singers. Both were run by retired black baritones. My studio was almost all black. We put on a show of Negro Spirituals at the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. I was the only white person on stage. I was the only white person in the building.

Our conductor was Roberta Flack (you may have heard of her). She made me a negro. That's how I came to be a negro.

I'm an African-American because all Americans are from Africa. Indeed all people are from Africa. This isn't controversial anymore although I can remember when it was.

It would also be true that in terms of hyphenated ethnicity I'm Irish-American since my ancestors once lived in Ireland. I undoubtedly had ancestors who came through the Middle East - there is almost no way to walk out of Africa without going through Israel. So maybe I could be called an Israli-American too. But none of my ancestors ever went through China, Siberia, Indo-China or India so I can't be a Chinese-American or any of the others. But like every other American I'm an African-American.

The odd thing is as the real taxonomy of races has gotten simpler with Cavalli-Sforza's work, the governmental categories have grown ever more bizarre and arbitrary.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

Boring!

beowulf said...

Speaking of Republicans not thinking, is Mitt Romney on bath salts? I believe he just chewed the face off of his own electoral prospects.

He could have run on "and he still has that pimp's knife";
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/05/pawlenty-for-president.html

but instead must run on, "he didn't REALLY push an old lady off a cliff". Unforced error.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnnaeOHXFyI

gummal said...

At a time when the middle classes face economic troubles and anxieties, what does the GOP give us? Romney and Ryan whose main convictions revolve around tax cuts for the super-rich.

Why doesn't the GOP appeal to the (white) middle classes(at least working outside government)? Partly, it's because much of the donations come from the superrich. But even more superrich money go to Democratics, so that alone can't be the reason.

The crucial difference is that Democrats not only appeal to the superrich(especially Jews) but also appeals to blacks, Hispanics, women, and gays because those brands of identity politics are permissible in our society. So, Democrats get money from the superrich but maintains the moralistic cachet of being for the 'little people'.

The 'little people' that the GOP should appeal to is the white middle class and working class, but such isn't allowed because white identity politics is taboo in American society. So, GOP has nothing left but 'free trade' and 'tax cuts for the rich', which the American middle class and working class have tired of. Tax cuts for the superrich is especially stupid for the GOP since 2/3 of the superrich are Democrats, and nearly 40% of the Forbes 400 are Jews, and most of them are Democrats.

Also, if Democratic Jews(the most powerful group within the Democratic party) eagerly push the party to appeal to identity politics among blacks, Hispanics, Asians, single women, and gays, it just happens that Republican Jews or neocons(the most powerful group within the Republican party) ardently push the party AGAINST playing to white middle class/working class identity.
So, Democrats not only cater to the superrich but wrap themselves with the mantle of being for the underdogs. In contrast, the GOP caters to the superrich but cannot connect with underdog middle class and working class whites who are conservative for social and cultural reasons.

GOP has become spiritually separated from its mass base that increasingly feels unappreciated, ignored, taken for granted. The only identity politics left in the GOP is pro-Zionism. Romney visits Israel and supports its apartheid policies against Palestinians but doesn't even support Boys Scouts' Christian policy on gay scout leaders.

Neocon Jews see the white middle class and working class as potential pitchforkers--angry antisemitic mobs--, and so the GOP has become the party of abstract principles that serve the globalist rich. Its only identity politics is trying to appeal to the Hispanic vote and willing to start more wars for Israel.

Yes, Jews do control this country, and Neocon influence has been deadly to the GOP.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if this will alienate the Ibizan Hispanics (i.e., Rubio) who certainly identify as "white" but also maintain a level of pride in their Spanishness. I liked being able to mark "white" and "Hispanic." But if forced to chose, then I'll definitely go with "white", but then I'll personally hold some resentment against the government for taking away my Castillian past.

gummover said...

A society has agendas and taboos. In the end, taboos may be more effective than agendas.

People may support or oppose an agenda, but agendas provoke open debate. Pro or con, it's a matter of rational discussion and argument.

A person might disagree with an agenda but may not find the agenda offensive or beyond the pale of discussion.
Taboos are different. Taboos are considered 'hateful' and 'foul' and 'noxious' and 'odious'. It's treated more like a nasty fart than an idea. It cannot even be debated. The reaction is visceral; it overpowers a person's emotions even before he or she gave it any thought. Certain words are loaded with 'taboos' via associations pushed by the media. So, the word 'racism' immediately conjures up Auschwitz, lynchings, KKK cross burning, bombed churches. But 'communism' isn't taboo because the media haven't associated that word with visceral images of murdered victims, razed villages, and etc.
So, communism is still considered an agenda than a matter of taboo. Even as one rejects communism, it is not thought beyond the pale to propose communism as an agenda.

But taboos end debate. Indeed, taboos determine what can and can't be agenda. Since 'white racism' is taboo, there can be no pro-white agenda.

So, taboos control agendas more than vice versa.
Who controls the taboos of our country? And what are our taboos?
Why is it that Obama can appeal to certain groups while Romney cannot? Obama is driven by agendas, Romney is muffled by taboos.

Anonymous said...

Of course, "race" does not exist; but "ethnicity"..? Well that's entirely different, of course.

Anon.

Anonymous said...

The obvious goal is make hispanics a "race" not an ethnicity. The other obvious goal is to make muslim immigrants (aka arabs) an official minority "race" and eligible for racial discrimination.

ATBOTL said...

That's because Republicans are "color blind." They are above noticing things like race.

Anonymous said...

Will the FBI start separating Hispanics in their crime reports, too?

A simple, innocuous change to law would be to slide an amendment into a bill or effect a policy change that required the FBI to use census categories when collecting crime stats. We'd also, somehow, have to find a legal way to require all 50 states to do the same.

Big Bill said...

White, black, "or" Hispanic? Hispanic is the latest race? The latest "social construct"? Wow! My ancestors settled in New Spain in 1809, about 15 miles north of what is now Vicksburg, MS.

If the Feds redefine "Hispanic" as a new racial alternative to "white" or "black", then I am going to go to HR at my oh-so-diversitard multinational company and get reassigned to the "Hispanic" race. Might as well help HR meet its quotas AND get a leg up for my own kin.

Hola, HR! Como estas? Me llamo Juan!

See ya later, suckas!

Anonymous said...

At a time when the middle classes face economic troubles and anxieties, what does the GOP give us? Romney and Ryan whose main convictions revolve around tax cuts for the super-rich.


I had not realized that we had paid DNC flacks posting on this site.


GOP has nothing left but 'free trade' and 'tax cuts for the rich'


Romney is against "free trade". "Tax cuts for the rich" is just one more Obama distraction from the important issues, just like the "war on women" or "I killed bin Laden".

eah said...

...but nobody on the Republican side cares to think about it.

Mr Sailer, they are the 'Stupid Party'. So some of them cannot think, or think very well. Besides, it's your job to think for them, right? You seem to have taken on that responsibility.

So assuming they do care, what should they say and do?

This little bureaucratic stuff can turn out to be hugely important down the road,...

The most important fact is that this is more evidence that a majority white America is quickly vanishing. And saying something other than politically correct welcoming platitudes about that can get a politician -- especially a Republican -- into big trouble.

About the new census form: Will there be a box for white people to check that says something like 'Check this box if you're white and you'd like to symbolically bend over and kiss your ass good-bye'?

Anonymous said...

"This little bureaucratic stuff can turn out to be hugely important down the road, but nobody on the Republican side cares to think about it."

The Republican party will be dead by the end of this decade.

Anonymous said...

Left complains of apartheid but also of assimtheid. Multiculturalists say melting pot assimilation is 'cultural genocide'.

So, it was wrong for the white minority to remain apart in SOUTH AFRICA, but it's also wrong for the Chinese majority to break down the social and cultural divisions between themselves and Tibetans. Wrong to divide the races in SA and wrong to combine the races in China.

Generally, it seems minorities with power try to maintain their power via separation whereas majorities with power try to absorb the minorities by assimilation.

Anonymous said...

http://www.leagroup.info/an-amerindian-asks-whats-up-with-white-women/

Anonymous said...

Why do politicians cater so much to certain groups while not to others? Some reasons are simple enough. Some groups are immensely rich and powerful. If politicians want funds to run campaigns, they pander to Wall Street and American Jewish Lobby. That's a given.

But is it only about power-ism or is there the factor of near-ism? Generally, people don't wanna offend people near them. People naturally wanna be liked. Most people are naturally 'decent' and 'sensitive' and don't wanna hurt the feelings of those nearby.

I believe one reason for racial segregation in the past wasn't just about white power but white discomfort at practicing white power in the proximity of people they might offend. Take the movie CONRACK with Jon Voight. He is a white teacher in a black community, which is segregated from a white island community that doesn't allow blacks. But on Halloween, he takes his black students to go trick-or-treating on the island. When he knocks on the door of an old white 'racist' who warned him not to bring the kids on the island, the old man--out of decency--opens the door and handles out the candies to the Negro kids. He just couldn't put up a sign on the door saying NO ________ ALLOWED. He later fires the Jon Voight character but he felt compelled to be nice to the Negro kids on Halloween.

Most people don't like to be nasty to people near them. I love ethic and gay jokes but I wouldn't say them near people who might be offended even if I could get away it it. I just don't wanna hurt people's feelings--unless I can do it anonymously on the internet, which is why the internet is great. So, near-ism does have an impact on how we behave.

Now, near-ism is related to power-ism in politics because those with lots of power tend to be nearer to top politicians. Rich Jews are more likely to have rub shoulders with politician than Palestinian-American who run a mom-and-pop grocery store in the South Side of Chicago where Obama lived. Since politicians wanna be liked by people near them, most politicians wanna be liked by Jews who are prevalent in elite circles.

But not all of near-ism may be about power. A lot of powerful white men in the past had black chauffeurs, butlers, maids, nannies, and such. Such near-ness made white people--even 'racists'--less willing to say or do stuff that might offend blacks. And maybe John Ford mellowed about Indians cuz he worked with so many of them on Westerns. After awhile, maybe he felt bad about showing so many Indians get killed for the fun of it. Indians on the movie sets were good to him but he was using them as target practice.

Anonymous said...

And then, there are gays. Though gays are powerful, they are nowhere nearly as powerful as Jews. But many gays are diligent, loyal, and supportive of powerful men in all industries and government. So, even a powerful politician who is anti-gay-agenda could actually have a hard-working gay guy working under him with great loyalty. Over time, the politician may become more sensitive as to whatever he says, does, or pushes in government that might offend the gay underlings who've been so supportive of him. (Hardworking gays seem to exist even among the GOP.)

Since democracy is about gaining the most amount of votes, you'd think Romney would pander more to middle America than to gay America. But as an elite politician, he moves around elite circles. 99% of the time, he doesn't meet with middle Americans. 99% of the time, he rubs shoulders with top Jews and even loyal closet-gays in the GOP. Whatever one's ideological or political position, one's behavior and outlook are profoundly affected by the company one keeps.
And it could be Romney has more gay-ish types in his inner circle than middle American types.

There may be lots of middle Americans, but they are not NEAR the people of power.

Why was George W. Bush more sensitive about what Bono felt about him that what Middle America thought of him. As a big time politician, he rubbed shoulders with famous and important people and wanted their approval. No wonder he was so hurt when Kanye West said, 'Bush hates black people.' Kanye West, though a scummy thug, is part of the cultural elite. But do you think Bush wouldn't given a shit if a middle American thought, 'Bush is a traitor to white people'?

ben tillman said...

Why doesn't the GOP appeal to the (white) middle classes(at least working outside government)?

Because it is streng verboten, and the GOP would rather play by the Democrats' rules than try to win.

Bruce Banner said...

Why doesn't the GOP appeal to the (white) middle classes
Because they get their votes whatever they do anyway (the beaten wife syndrome). And the GOP´s one and only purpose is to destroy said middle classes through deceit. It may not make sense to you if you still believe in democracy and all that jazz, but it becomes obvious once you start thinking out of the box.

Mr. Anon said...

"Conatus said...

(a) General. Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of groups and without regard to their individual qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control."

This could certainly apply to white people now.

"(b) Members of designated groups. (1) There is a rebuttable presumption that the following individuals are socially disadvantaged:"

A rebuttable presumption, and yet I'll warrant that no one has ever bothered to rebut it.

"......(persons with origins..............Japan, China Hong Kong, Taiwan,......."

Does anyone believe that? Does anyone really believe that immigrants from Japan or China are at any kind of disadvantage?

"...from India, Pakistan,..."

And who ever asked these people to come here in the first place? Why is America all of a sudden responsible for remediating the historical grievances held by south asians against the British Empire?

By the way, thanks for posting that, Conatus.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone believe that? Does anyone really believe that immigrants from Japan or China are at any kind of disadvantage?

Maybe in 1900, but now the average immigrant from Ukraine or Moldova is more disadvantaged than the average immigrant from Japan.